Agreement To Extend Limitation Period

Complications occur for limitation purposes, for example when the chain of project agreements involves a mixture of deeds and contracts and, as a result, limitation periods vary. “Of particular note is the judge`s proposal that standstill agreements are a `self-inflicted complication` in construction disputes` – When the applicants terminated the third standstill agreement, they still had more than three weeks to initiate proceedings. If the defendant`s position was correct and the applicants were no longer in time after the expiry of the third standstill agreement, the conclusion of the agreement might cause the applicants to lose their right to assert their rights. The objective of the status quo agreement was to preserve rights, not to risk their loss. “It is undeniable that this is often the right way to go [opening proceedings within six months and then requesting an adjournment] but, for my part, I do not want to go as far as the judge and say that there is no room for status quo agreements in cases that are often very painful and sensitive and where a decision must be made, while the grief is still very raw and emotionally high. In such circumstances, the issue of procedure, instead of creating a safety net in the absence of an agreement, may lead to a hardening of recruitments and a focus on litigation, with the resulting cost of succession and delays in its distribution. Limitation is a possible defence against a right if the right has not been invoked in good time. The legislator imposes limitation periods within which an appeal must be brought. Where an applicant does not bring an action within the applicable limitation period, he runs the risk that a defendant will argue that a claim is not in good time (also known as “time-barred” or “time-barred”). – Any standstill agreement shall prevent the Parties from initiating proceedings during the currency of this Agreement. Consequently, the applicants were not entitled to initiate proceedings before 30 November 2016 without infringing the provisions of the third standstill agreement. claims for breach of a contract performed as an instrument must be invoked within 12 years, while claims of an unlawful act must be invoked within six years of the plea invoked; In case of negligence, this is usually the case when physical damage occurs.

In a recent case, Russell & Anor vs. Stone [2017] EWHC 1555 (TCC), for example, the Technology and Construction Court had to interpret a “standard agreement” to determine whether the agreement suspended or extended the limitation period. As Coulson J put it in Russell vs. Stone, “status quo agreements have become much more frequent than ever” and yet, as this case showed, they are often far from negotiating and documenting simple agreements. This practice note addresses some issues related to the use of status quo agreements and contains links to precedents. In view of the suspension of the agreement, the limitation period would mean that the proceedings had been initiated before the expiry of the relevant limitation period, while an extension of the limitation period would mean that the application would be time-barred. However, if a standstill agreement is considered the most appropriate option, efforts should be made to ensure that the parties explicitly agree on the intended effect of the judgment (i.e. whether it suspends or extends the time limit for the purposes of the limitation period) and that the text of the standstill agreement clearly and consistently reflects that intention. It is not possible for the court to extend the limitation period in advance. In addition, outside the areas of personal injury and defamation, there is no discretion to extend the restriction. Accordingly, in cases where the limitation period is approaching, but the claimant is not willing to initiate proceedings, it is necessary to consider the conclusion of a moratorium or standstill agreement. .

. .